Letters to the editor

Posted: Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Repeating past mistakes

could endanger crucial

tidal freshwater wetlands

Your Oct. 11 editorial, "Diligence, not delay," made some puzzling statements about the Stakeholders Evaluation Group and the model being used to assess impacts of the proposed deepening of the Savannah navigation channel.

No one questions that the newest model is a vast improvement over its predecessor. The question is why the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Georgia Ports Authority aren't heeding the advice of their own consultant, Chuck Watson, regarding necessary additions.

Your editorial suggested that the purpose of advocating the best possible model is to kill the project. That canard is too often too easily aimed at discounting legitimate concerns. The real question is why the Corps and GPA refuse to consider Mr. Watson's remedy.

Evidently, slavishly keeping to a schedule is more important than ensuring that we get the model right. Everyone at the SEG table ought to recognize this folly.

Had Mr. Watson not foretold that the first model wouldn't work (and been dismissed), and had he not subsequently been hired by the project sponsors to engender confidence that such a debacle wouldn't be repeated, perhaps his current warning wouldn't seem like déjà vu.

Over the years, we've caused much destruction to the natural functions of the Savannah estuary, usually in the name of commerce. Carefully managed, the estuary can still serve as both habitat and waterborne highway.

The model is the key to ensuring that we don't lose the last of the crucial tidal freshwater wetlands contained in the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge.

Because those resources are irreplaceable and because we've lost so much to previous harbor projects, we feel strongly that Mr. Watson's prescription for a better model ought to be implemented.

Past failures to accurately assess the impact of projects have caused chronic water quality problems and declines in fisheries. The Georgia Conservancy makes no apologies for working to ensure that we don't blindly repeat such mistakes.

WILL BERSON

Stakeholder Evaluation

Group Member

Georgia Conservancy

Savannah

Columnist Ivins got

something right, finally

Well, Molly Ivins finally got one thing right. In her column of Oct. 6, "Will Miers' appointment exacerbate religious divide in America?", she was of course bashing President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers.

What she got right was her definition of a Christian fundamentalist: "What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone."

Then again, she correctly stated what was on Miers' church's Web site: "that it believes in biblical inerrancy, full immersion baptism, original sin and salvation dependent entirely upon accepting Jesus Christ."

What I am sure is her added comment, "Everyone else is going to hell."

So let's give her credit for finally getting something right. Whether she believes it or not.

BEVERLY ZIPPERER

Savannah

We are responsible for

our success, happiness

According to Henry Kesselman, "the alternative to a competitive society is a cooperative society ... if I concern myself with your welfare and you with my welfare, we are both in a much better position for survival and progress ... rather than have great numbers of losers, we 'should' all be winners..." ("Be cooperative instead of being competitive," Letters, Oct. 15).

In theory, those ideas are wonderful. However, when you add a major variable to the equation, human beings, those ideas do not work. They are the basis of an ideal called communism.

The ideal of everyone working for the common good is to be admired. But how many successful communist nations can you name? Look at the difference between North Korea (cooperative society and depressed economy) and South Korea (competitive society and thriving economy).

You see, all people think differently. Whereas many people do think about the welfare of other people, there are many who take advantage of that. There are people right now receiving our tax dollars because they claim they can't find a job, in spite of the fact that I see "help wanted" signs all over the place.

Furthermore, there are millions of openings on various job sites on the Internet. Why can't they find a job? Because they choose not to.

Now, I do realize there are people who truly need help and I gladly pay my taxes to help them. But if you control competition, you take away incentives to succeed. People naturally want more out of life. Our success and survival is our responsibility, not someone else's.

CALEB PARKER

Savannah

Rebuild levee first, then

rebuild New Orleans

The pictures we saw of New Orleans under water were the natural pictures of that city. The pond was drained to build a city. Now it has been drained a third time. No more money should be spent there until a levee is put up to protect that city.

I agree that New Orleans needs help, but don't rebuild until the levee is up.

ALLAN G. DARING JR.

Savannah

Closure decision will

impact entire community

Union Mission and its board of directors have chosen to close Parent and Child Montessori, a Child Care Of Distinction, with no explanation to the public.

The move was made despite an apparent pledge earlier this year to maintain Parent and Child Services for two years after the two organizations merged. The function of Parent and Child was necessary to the community. It provided high quality day care for working poor families.

The manner of the notice of closure was also very frustrating. At this point in the school year it will be very difficult to find places for children. Most centers are full and have waiting lists. It is particularly hard for parents who will have to take time from work to search for good places for their children.

This decision by Union Mission is a true loss to the low-income families who relied on the center and to the entire community.

FRANCES SMITH

Savannah

Difficult questions must

be asked in Thunderbolt

Now comes the time for the Thunderbolt voters to experience political campaigning trick or treat. Hopefully, when listening to the candidates, voters will ask difficult questions and hold them accountable for past actions.

Since no forum exists to allow tough questions, the following topics might be of interest :

What are the excuses for delays in projects such as the Thomson Park renovation and extra costs such as $3,000 for fence relocations?

How many candidates have a clue on how to deal with traffic coming through Thunderbolt and other institutions' activities that affect the town's residents?

What and who caused delays in the revisions of the zoning code and operational procedures?

Why is complacency and level of competency by some town staff and council members allowed to continue?

Will annexation, enlarging the fire department empire and continued complacency in controlling large developments be the good old boy agenda for the new City Council?

If three candidates from the Isle of Armstrong are elected, will we have favoritism in providing town resources ?

Why aren't council incumbents and appointed zoning commission members who violate town ordinances and other procedures and state laws held accountable?

Will the mistakes and inept methods of some past and present council members be repeated ?

I urge all residents to ask the difficult questions of all candidates and hope that the good old boy candidates don't become Thunderbolt's future problems.